PDA

View Full Version : Proposition 8 (California)


St. Anger
October 31st, 2008, 02:17 PM
This is about eliminating same sex rights in California, and probably this will be in other states in the US

Yes means gay marriage will be eliminated.
No means it will stay.


My Opinion:
Some people are ACTUALLY voting yes on banning it, those cowards. They say its about teaching it in schools. Thats not true. They don't want gays to be married. Who cares about your sexual orientation? We are all effing equal. It makes me SO sick! I'm not gay, but treat everyone equal!

Motsuko Live
October 31st, 2008, 03:15 PM
If I had a dollar for everytime this issue was brought up... here's my view on the whole thing.

Anyway, something I keep hearing a lot of is people using religion as an excuse for not wanting gays and lesbians to marry. Apparently, God doesn't approve of two men/two women getting married... marriage is meant for a man and a woman. So what? That's one religion; there's hundreds of religions out there, and I'm sure one of them doesn't say anything about how 'wrong' it is for two men/women to get married.

So are the 'Nay Sayers' trying to force their religion on us? I mean, I'm pretty sure we have the right to choose our religion... which means we should have the right to marry whoever we want, if the religion we choose has nothing against it.

Not sure if what I just said made any sense, but hopefully most of you will understand what I mean.

Dukey
October 31st, 2008, 04:08 PM
I would definintely ote No
I'm not gay, but 2 people on my friends list are, and well, everyone should be allowed to have there own rights.

They need a Gay Star to come out and make a Nelson Mandella speech

speedinglight
October 31st, 2008, 06:14 PM
I'm voting (actually can't vote yet XD) no

Simply put its the right to marrage, i mean honestly what is their problem with it ill never know, with them saying it'll be taught at schools...ok when in the hell was that a issue honestly the "yes" people have strayed waaaaay to far from the main point, as for massachusets well thats them, what happens there doesn't always mean it'll happen here


to me marrage isn't "by man and a women" but more so "by two people who are comitted to each other) as for "religious freedom", isn't the issue about a civil union?

honestly what happened to "life liberty and the persuit of happiness"?

Mariah Carey
October 31st, 2008, 06:42 PM
I would definintely ote No
I'm not gay, but 2 people on my friends list are, and well, everyone should be allowed to have there own rights.

They need a Gay Star to come out and make a Nelson Mandella speech
Ellen Degeneres did.

To be blunt, vote no. Gays should have the right to be married, done and dusted.

txteclipse
October 31st, 2008, 07:34 PM
If people feel they should have the right to marry others of the same sex, I'll tolerate it as long as a) this is the majority vote and b) people that perform marriage ceremonies are not forced to perform said ceremonies. This is how democracy functions.

I'm voting yes, anyways. I consider gay marriage to be unethical. On top of that, gay couples would take benefits that are funded by my tax money which would normally be reserved for traditional couples.

Finally, this thread should be locked. There's no way in heck it's going to stay peaceful for long.

Volkner's Apprentice
October 31st, 2008, 07:57 PM
I agree with the above poster. Things like this shouldn't be posted on PC, as we do have a lot of ethnic/cultural blending here (in essence, the vast majority of members here are going to vote "No" anyway, and there are a good portion of members here that are actually gay.)

With that said, this topic is just going to have the 62,000 against the 4 who say yes. There's nothing to be discussed on this issue anyway...if you can vote, go do it. Another good reason this is pointless is because well over 50% of the people on PC cannot vote and don't have a say in the matter.

Erik Destler
October 31st, 2008, 08:28 PM
On top of that, gay couples would take benefits that are funded by my tax money which would normally be reserved for traditional couples.
What does that matter? o.o;

What's unethical about two mature adults being in love?
Mind if I ask you, what is even sacred about marriage any more? People are allowed to divorce people on the dime today.
Basically, a man and a woman can get fall in what they think is love, and then divorce shortly thereafter, but a man and a man or a woman and a woman who love each other cannot be married?
Not to say they might not get divorced either, but you have to take in to consideration it's not ethical as a whole to deny people rights to happiness. The core, basic American ideals are established in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

On a further note, to use it's against moral ethics / religion - take in to consideration one of the reasons America was settled by English Settlers - to escape Religious Persecution.
Moreover, you're being unconstitutional by saying America has a set religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Would you care to elaborate on your logic?

And in short, I'd vote No.

St. Anger
October 31st, 2008, 08:34 PM
If people feel they should have the right to marry others of the same sex, I'll tolerate it as long as a) this is the majority vote and b) people that perform marriage ceremonies are not forced to perform said ceremonies. This is how democracy functions.

I'm voting yes, anyways. I consider gay marriage to be unethical. On top of that, gay couples would take benefits that are funded by my tax money which would normally be reserved for traditional couples.

Finally, this thread should be locked. There's no way in heck it's going to stay peaceful for long.

Minimodding is horrible.

Glitter Stain
October 31st, 2008, 08:40 PM
I find it pretty offensive that anyone would vote "yes". Whether same sex marraige is traditional or not, it should be legal. Just a message to the 4 people who voted "yes":

Learn to accept others' opinions and preferences. It's not hard to do.

GKS
October 31st, 2008, 08:41 PM
If I had a dollar for everytime this issue was brought up... here's my view on the whole thing.

Anyway, something I keep hearing a lot of is people using religion as an excuse for not wanting gays and lesbians to marry. Apparently, God doesn't approve of two men/two women getting married... marriage is meant for a man and a woman. So what? That's one religion; there's hundreds of religions out there, and I'm sure one of them doesn't say anything about how 'wrong' it is for two men/women to get married.

So are the 'Nay Sayers' trying to force their religion on us? I mean, I'm pretty sure we have the right to choose our religion... which means we should have the right to marry whoever we want, if the religion we choose has nothing against it.

Not sure if what I just said made any sense, but hopefully most of you will understand what I mean.

Usually the person who believes in one religion not hundreds, so that is why they say what they say.

Chibi-chan
October 31st, 2008, 08:45 PM
Minimodding is horrible.

Mod here.
Don't break the word limit.

Amachi
October 31st, 2008, 08:52 PM
Minimodding is horrible.
Yeah, you shouldn't do it.
I find it pretty offensive that anyone would vote "yes". Whether same sex marraige is traditional or not, it should be legal. Just a message to the 4 people who voted "yes":

Learn to accept others' opinions and preferences. It's not hard to do.
Cool, you should learn to do that too.

St. Anger
October 31st, 2008, 08:53 PM
Mod here.
Don't break the word limit.

I thought as long as its 25 characters, its okay. But, whatever...

Obviously the people who vote Yes aren't posting here..

icomeanon6
October 31st, 2008, 08:59 PM
I find it pretty offensive that anyone would vote "yes". Whether same sex marraige is traditional or not, it should be legal. Just a message to the 4 people who voted "yes":

Learn to accept others' opinions and preferences. It's not hard to do.
Isn't it just hilarious when people will not accept others' beliefs on the grounds that said beliefs aren't accepting? Maybe you should accept the fact that some people consider the union of a man and a woman to be a sacred thing. Hasn't it occurred to you that some people are deeply offended by anyone voting no?

As for my opinion, I believe that gay marriage is wrong, and I would not vote in favor of its legalization. However, it's really not an opinion that I can impose on others politically. I think this matter should be left up to the states, and definitely not the courts. For this kind of personal issue, it only makes sense that the decision be left to the people. If legalization of gay marriage were passed in my state due to a popular vote, I would not complain.

We can argue the morality of gay marriage until the cows come home, and even then we wouldn't get anywhere. As far as legality goes, let's have it reflect the overall opinion of the populace.

txteclipse
October 31st, 2008, 09:14 PM
What does that matter? o.o;

It's my money. I don't want it to be used for something I consider wrong.

Mind if I ask you, what is even sacred about marriage any more? People are allowed to divorce people on the dime today.

That doesn't make it right. I still hold marriage to be very sacred, even if other people don't.

Not to say they might not get divorced either, but you have to take in to consideration it's not ethical as a whole to deny people rights to happiness.

Slaughter makes serial killers happy. Burning buildings make pyromaniacs happy. Rape makes rapists happy. Toning down the intensity a bit, shoplifting makes thieves happy. Should we stop denying them what makes them happy? Again, this is how democracy works. The majority of people decide what is acceptable and what is not. And again, I will live with it if the majority of people vote to allow gay marriage.

The core, basic American ideals are established in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

The pursuit of happiness is bound by the law, however. As I said in my before example, you can do whatever makes you happy as long as the majority of the country is okay with you doing so. The minority doesn't suddenly get special privilege because whatever they want to do will make them happy: if society worked that way, we would be forced to let rapists/serial killers/etc. do whatever they wanted, like I just showed.

Moreover, you're being unconstitutional by saying America has a set religion.

I don't recall ever saying that.

We can argue the morality of gay marriage until the cows come home, and even then we wouldn't get anywhere. As far as legality goes, let's have it reflect the overall opinion of the populace.

Agreed. It's pretty much as simple as that.

Aurafire
October 31st, 2008, 09:14 PM
See, I'm pretty conflicted on this right now. I don't see how the majority of the U.S. won't vote against legalizing gay marriage, but really, it's something that is up for the states to decide.

As for me, I'm leaning towards yes (voting for proposition 8). And no, I don't believe voting for this means you're "Anti-gay" or you think that gay people are second class citizens. I certainly don't believe either of those. I just thing marriage should be between a man and a woman. Not even for religious reasons...My moral beliefs just direct me to have this opinion. And I'd appreciate it if no one called me a coward or a nut for thinking this way, and I will try do the same. I don't think anyone is wrong or right on this issue, I just think it's up to the people to decide. If the states decide it should be legal, so be it.

Owl
October 31st, 2008, 09:19 PM
Slaughter makes serial killers happy. Burning buildings make pyromaniacs happy. Rape makes rapists happy. Toning down the intensity a bit, shoplifting makes thieves happy. Should we stop denying them what makes them happy? Again, this is how democracy works. The majority of people decide what is acceptable and what is not. And again, I will live with it if the majority of people vote to allow gay marriage.


The pursuit of happiness is bound by the law, however. As I said in my before example, you can do whatever makes you happy as long as the majority of the country is okay with you doing so. The minority doesn't suddenly get special privilege because whatever they want to do will make them happy: if society worked that way, we would be forced to let rapists/serial killers/etc. do whatever they wanted, like I just showed.

Because clearly, two men or two women marrying each other out of love is equivalent to murder, rape, arson, etc.

Those things harm other people physically, they cause damage to other human beings. You cannot say the same about two people of the same gender getting married.

Erik Destler
October 31st, 2008, 09:25 PM
Slaughter makes serial killers happy. Burning buildings make pyromaniacs happy. Rape makes rapists happy. Toning down the intensity a bit, shoplifting makes thieves happy. Should we stop denying them what makes them happy? Again, this is how democracy works. The majority of people decide what is acceptable and what is not. And again, I will live with it if the majority of people vote to allow gay marriage.
You can't possibly stretch a comparison between homosexuals and serial killers.

The pursuit of happiness is bound by the law, however. As I said in my before example, you can do whatever makes you happy as long as the majority of the country is okay with you doing so. The minority doesn't suddenly get special privilege because whatever they want to do will make them happy: if society worked that way, we would be forced to let rapists/serial killers/etc. do whatever they wanted, like I just showed.
But marriage is more of a basic right, instead of a privilege, is it not?
Again, you're stretching a bit here - homosexuals marrying is quite different from letting bad guys run amuck.

That doesn't make it right. I still hold marriage to be very sacred, even if other people don't.
What's sacred about it, then?

My question for you, txteclipse (http://www.pokecommunity.com/member.php?u=62143), is: what makes gay marriage ethical or unethical. ^^;

Black Mage
October 31st, 2008, 09:27 PM
It's just astounding in this day and age that anyone can support legalized discrimination against another human being. It's a sad reflection on the human race as a whole. It's also astounding that people still use arguments like "if we legalize gay marriage, we'll have to legalize pedophilia / bestiality / etc." Last time I checked, those resulted in someone being harmed in one way or another. In marriage, both parties are consenting and fully cooperative with what's occurring.

Morkula
October 31st, 2008, 09:28 PM
The fact is, marriage is a sacred/religious institution. Whether you or I feels that gay marriage is wrong, the government has no business regulating what = marriage. That should be left to the individual religious groups to decide. Just because gay marriage goes against my beliefs, doesn't mean that it goes against everyone else's beliefs, and I respect that and believe that they're entitled to their morals and values. If a religious group or any individual chooses to perform gay marriage, then that's up to them and not up to the government to decide.

Everyone is equal, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and the government shouldn't be sticking its nose in religious affairs such as marriage. Gay couples are entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples (hospital visitation and such), but marriage should be left for religious institutions to decide how to handle.

icomeanon6
October 31st, 2008, 09:45 PM
You can't possibly stretch a comparison between homosexuals and serial killers.
There's no such thing as a perfect analogy. The comparison is that both murder and homosexual marriage are against the law and considered unethical by a large number of people.

homosexuals marrying is quite different from letting bad guys run amuck.Actually, if we hold the argument that traditional family structure is the ideal setting for child-raising to be valid, it can be stated that the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple is psychologically harmful to the child.

What's sacred about it, then?

My question for you, txteclipse (http://www.pokecommunity.com/member.php?u=62143), is: what makes gay marriage ethical or unethical. ^^;Neither your ethics nor txteclipse's can be objectively justified, so there is really no point in asking that question. We live in a democratic society, and if a moral opinion is held widely and strongly enough to influence the majority of a population to vote a certain way, it is the responsibility of the government to acknowledge that opinion. Ethics aren't objective, so our decision making as a society should be mostly limited to what is objective: the popular vote.

In other words: if you don't like how your country votes, tough. Move to an authoritarian country if you don't think democracy is the way to go.

Volkner's Apprentice
October 31st, 2008, 09:45 PM
Gay couples are entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual couples (hospital visitation and such), but marriage should be left for religious institutions to decide how to handle.

Not prodding the issue further or anything, but were hospital visitations actually denied for a gay couple? Something like that I don't see being conflicted. Forgive me if it's happened somewhere and I've missed it.

Edit: Unless you're already replying, I think I just understood what you meant by that. XDD My bad. ^___^'...

Morkula
October 31st, 2008, 09:49 PM
There are several "gay rights" issues that have come under a lot of debate, Volkner's Apprentice. Hospital visitation (does a gay partner constitute "family" when only family is allowed to visit), insurance privileges, employment discrimination, housing (people refusing to let gay couples live in a house they're renting, etc.), among other things.

txteclipse
October 31st, 2008, 09:52 PM
Because clearly, two men or two women marrying each other out of love is equivalent to murder, rape, arson, etc.

Those things harm other people physically, they cause damage to other human beings. You cannot say the same about two people of the same gender getting married.

I think that gay marriage is wrong. That was my point. Note the bit about shoplifting if those examples aren't cutting it for you.

And it may, in fact probably will, be harmful to allow gay marriage, at least in my eyes. I do not want my children brought up in schools where teachers can take them on field trips to lesbian weddings (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html), or to let teachers be able to teach them in sex ed that being gay is okay. For me, that would be like allowing teachers to tell kids to shoplift. It is morally unacceptable.

What's sacred about it, then?

It is a holy union between a man and a woman, no matter how that definition has been twisted thus far.

My question for you, txteclipse, is: what makes gay marriage ethical or unethical. ^^;

Why did you link to my visitor page?

Anyways, I am a Christian, and I am sure that you are well aware that my religion considers homosexuality to be a sin. This is really all the explanation I need, but it's not all you'll get, as I have others.

First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases. It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful. It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.

Erik Destler
October 31st, 2008, 09:53 PM
Actually, if we hold the argument that traditional family structure is the ideal setting for child-raising to be valid, it can be stated that the adoption of a child by a homosexual couple is psychologically harmful to the child.Really now.
Cite sources please, as this is the first I've ever heard of this actually being used in a debate.
Because, to the contrary, I've seen people with same sex parents turn out quite well. The only possible psychological trauma they could face is if they were being teased by ignorant people who poked fun at the fact they have two mom's or two dad's.

It isn't the same-sex couple's fault - it'd be the parents of the mockers for not teaching their children to be tolerant of other people.
Like it or not, the Declaration of Independence still states that all men are created equal. You should respect everyone. It's just the right thing to do :)

edit:
...
First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases. It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful. It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.
Homosexuality passes on as much STDs as heterosexuality.
And it isn't harmful if it's explained and accepted. If my child was having thoughts about his or her orientation, I'd talk to them and explain to him or her what they want to know - simple as that. If God made them that way, then I'd accept them.
Why?
Because I believe God doesn't make mistakes and he wouldn't allow these many people to exist if he didn't will it.
It only leads to depression/etc when you have no one to talk to, essentially.

Aurafire
October 31st, 2008, 09:59 PM
You should respect everyone. It's just the right thing to do :)

Exactly...It's the right thing to do to respect everyone. So why isn't the opinion that gay marriage shouldn't be legal deserving of any respect? This is a moral issues, not one of right and wrong. We should respect the views of the majority of the country, just like we do for elections. It's up to the states to legalize gay marriage or not, but it's pointless to bicker and get heated over differing opinions...We're never going to change each other's mind on how we choose to think.

Erik Destler
October 31st, 2008, 10:04 PM
Exactly...It's the right thing to do to respect everyone. So why isn't the opinion that gay marriage shouldn't be legal deserving of any respect? This is a moral issues, not one of right and wrong.
Err, according to the dictionary, morals are "pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes." :P

I'm just saying, if two mature adults love each other, why can't they get married?

Owl
October 31st, 2008, 10:04 PM
I think that gay marriage is wrong. That was my point. Note the bit about shoplifting if those examples aren't cutting it for you.

And it may, in fact probably will, be harmful to allow gay marriage, at least in my eyes. I do not want my children brought up in schools where teachers can take them on field trips to lesbian weddings (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html), or to let teachers be able to teach them in sex ed that being gay is okay. For me, that would be like allowing teachers to tell kids to shoplift. It is morally unacceptable.

So.. you're teaching your children to be prejudice against gay people. You're perfectly entitled to your beliefs and passing them on to your children, but I find it insane that you hold the belief that certain groups of people are lower than others. ESPECIALLY in the eyes of the law, where as Erik Destler has said several times, "all men are created equal."

Alright though, just clearing that part up there. If you're set in your prejudice ways and want to teach your children those same prejudices because of your religion, I'm not going to debate that aspect of it.

Moving on, I'm going to clear stuff up for you here, because you seem to be making a lot of assumptions:

First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases. It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful. It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.
Well, a few things:


Homosexuality does not cause physical harm. One type of sexual activity usually associated with homosexuality can, but so can regular intercourse between a man and a woman. Do you understand that homosexual couples function in the same way that heterosexual couples do? Two men holding hands does not cause physical harm. Two women kissing does not cause physical harm.
"The desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes"? Okay, that's just a huge generalization and stereotype. Sure, there are probably a good number of people who undergo those kinds of operations, but being homosexual doesn't mean you want to change genders. I've met exactly zero homosexuals who would be interested in such an operation (and where I am, that's a lot of people.)
Sex between two homosexual people has no greater likelihood of spreading an STD than a heterosexual one. Sex is sex, and as long as the people involved are being "safe", that's the best they can do. Two men is no more dangerous than a man and a woman (and in fact, two women is like less dangerous.)

BeachBoy
October 31st, 2008, 10:11 PM
Way I see it, if someone loves someone of the same gender, good for them, not my place to say they can't love. They want to marry? Let them.

Aurafire
October 31st, 2008, 10:12 PM
Err, according to the dictionary, morals are "pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes." :P

Right, and who's to say whether your opinion on an issue based on your morals is right or wrong? Morals will effect the way we think and how we view certain issues, which will thusly make us form opinions on said issues. Opinions aren't right or wrong...They're opinions. You're taking the definition of morals much too literally.

I'm just saying, if two mature adults love each other, why can't they get married?

Why does the inability to get married automatically mean that you're somehow being wronged? Is anyone saying two gay people can't live together, be happy together, and raise a family together? No one is voting against that. But I say again, this is an issue left for the states and their people to decide.

ShadowDeeps
October 31st, 2008, 10:14 PM
I'm to vote no, to provide a brief window into my opinion.

To be less brief, I'm voting no because I look at it this way: so long as two lovers can be devoted and content in a relationship, who cares? Discrimination and prejudice of any kind are on equal footing when it comes to being reprehensible. To me, to traduce others for being of different preferences is to make cruelty a simple thing and to create a bandwagon within itself - why so many are inclined to make this sound like such a horrible thing remains an enigma to me. To cast off someone for being different, sexually or not, is to hate someone in my eyes - and to hate anything is frightening. It's self-destructive and leads to inward hate, eventually. But I don't get why people apply even dislike to such things. Even if it's a choice or through genetics (I suppose making it a more valid "weakness"), it shouldn't make a difference. Like the Civil Rights movement, one day we'll probably all look back upon this prop and wonder why it was ever debated to begin with. I wouldn't say it's paltry but it shouldn't incur hate either. It shouldn't be a debatable.

Legal union is about equality, not sex. To say yes to this prop is to deny love, so if that's what one is aiming to do, then I think it just furthers the already sad world we live in. Not to be too pessimistic; those are my sentiments.

icomeanon6
October 31st, 2008, 10:22 PM
Really now.
Cite sources please, as this is the first I've ever heard of this actually being used in a debate.
If that's the case, you haven't debated with enough people. As for citing a source to show you that the argument exists, which I really shouldn't have to, here you go:

Opponents of same-sex marriage also point to research which state the power and importance of the mother-child bond compared to children without a mother.[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_marriage#cite_note-Focus_on_the_Family-55)[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_marriage#cite_note-64)[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_marriage#cite_note-65) David Blankenhorn argues that raising children in a same-sex marriage violates the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child) that guarantees children the right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_rights) to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_marriage#cite_note-Blankenhorn-66)

Homosexuality passes on as much STDs as heterosexuality.You missed the point of his argument, which was that it passes disease without the benefit of the creation of new life. This is also an argument that is commonly used against heterosexual sex without the intention of bearing a child.

If God made them that way, then I'd accept them.
Why?
Because I believe God doesn't make mistakes and he wouldn't allow these many people to exist if he didn't will it.You have got to be kidding. First you get on our backs for having no reason for marriage being sacred, and now this. I will now state one of your quotes with a few words changed:

"My question for you, txteclipse Erik Destler, is: what makes gay marriage ethical or unethical you think that God decides peoples' sexual orientations. ^^;"

If you want to argue theology, that's fine by me, so here goes.

<THEOLOGY>

I don't think that God creates people in a biological sense, for he allows things to exist that are contrary to his will all the time. By your argument, God must have willed events like the holocaust simply because they happened. There are two things that I don't believe God tampers with on a regular basis: free will and nature. God lets us exist as natural selection would cause, but he gives us the free will to decide what we will do with the personal situation that we are presented with. In short, I do not believe that being attracted to one's own sex is a sin, but that practicing in homosexual sex and marriage is.

</THEOLOGY>

Zet
October 31st, 2008, 10:25 PM
Slaughter makes serial killers happy. Burning buildings make pyromaniacs happy. Rape makes rapists happy. Toning down the intensity a bit, shoplifting makes thieves happy. Should we stop denying them what makes them happy? Again, this is how democracy works. The majority of people decide what is acceptable and what is not. And again, I will live with it if the majority of people vote to allow gay marriage.
you're so right, I should commit rape and shoplift then I'd be equivalent to gay marriage, it's totally worth it, thanks for opening my eyes, I could have never done that without your wisdom ^_^


The pursuit of happiness is bound by the law, however. As I said in my before example, you can do whatever makes you happy as long as the majority of the country is okay with you doing so. The minority doesn't suddenly get special privilege because whatever they want to do will make them happy: if society worked that way, we would be forced to let rapists/serial killers/etc. do whatever they wanted, like I just showed.

the pursuit of happiness is a law now? well ****! and it sounds like you're an idiot who will follow any garbage that comes out of someone's mouth and just follow them because you can't make your own choice in life

I think that gay marriage is wrong. That was my point. Note the bit about shoplifting if those examples aren't cutting it for you.
your examples are terrible, we might as well compare you to the IQ of a shovel


And it may, in fact probably will, be harmful to allow gay marriage, at least in my eyes. I do not want my children brought up in schools where teachers can take them on field trips to lesbian weddings (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html), or to let teachers be able to teach them in sex ed that being gay is okay. For me, that would be like allowing teachers to tell kids to shoplift. It is morally unacceptable.
you may not know this but.... gay marriage doesn't kill people, people kill people, you get it now?


It is a holy union between a man and a woman, no matter how that definition has been twisted thus far.
apparently atheists can marry, who knew?


Anyways, I am a Christian, and I am sure that you are well aware that my religion considers homosexuality to be a sin. This is really all the explanation I need, but it's not all you'll get, as I have others.
then you will know that God forgives all and accepts all his children in open arms


First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases. It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful. It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.

I didn't know same gender sex can give STD's, I guess the chances are lower than that to sex with the opposite gender. I dunno, I know lots of gays who aren't depressed, they're actually quite cheerful and fun to be with and I'd totally have sex with them, even though I am straight, does that mean I will get an STD? probably not.

but anyway, same sex marriage should stay, everyone has the right to marry anyone they wish to marry

Volkner's Apprentice
October 31st, 2008, 10:25 PM
There are several "gay rights" issues that have come under a lot of debate, Volkner's Apprentice. Hospital visitation (does a gay partner constitute "family" when only family is allowed to visit), insurance privileges, employment discrimination, housing (people refusing to let gay couples live in a house they're renting, etc.), among other things.

Ahh, now I see what you mean, sorry about that. Yes, those types of situations should be made illegal to discriminate against, ESPECIALLY the housing thing. Unless you yourself live in the room next door to the person you plan on renting it out to, that's no reason to say 'sorry, I don't let gays live here.' That's just ridiculous.

When it comes to marriage, I don't know, it seems like the biggest thing same-sex marriages would fight for is the medical rights, etc. that come along with binding marriage agreements.

How the heck did marriages get so law-binding anyway? X_x So much for separation of church and state..(no, I'm not totally oblivious to the fact that marriages have been law-binding for quite some time XD I just don't know why they're still so focused on it. Well..actually I know exactly why, for a load of reasons..yet for some reason I'm still typing...

Oh look it's 2:25 a.m. :P)

Yamikarasu
October 31st, 2008, 10:35 PM
If it doesn't hurt anyone there is no reason to ban it.

I understand that people have religious beliefs that say homosexuality is wrong, but I believe strongly in the complete separation of church and state, so I don't think that should be an issue, although it certainly is.

Just remember that once people believed that interracial marriages would be harmful to society just as strongly as people today think homosexual marriages would be.

That is all.

Patchisou Yutohru
October 31st, 2008, 11:20 PM
I'm voting yes, anyways. I consider gay marriage to be unethical. On top of that, gay couples would take benefits that are funded by my tax money which would normally be reserved for traditional couples.

As much as I respect your opinion, there are enough homosexuals in the world to cover the benefits you're so dearly worried that they will be taking away from you. Once you give that money to the government, it's not yours anymore, sweetie. Aside from that, tax money goes to various aspects of our nation that you seem to be ignoring in that statement. How are you so sure that your money is going only directly to those who you do not wish to be united together? I am confused as to why you're even associating government with your argument here which is clearly a religion based argument. Like many people have stated, and I agree with, it's not the government's job to decide if two people who love each other should be together or not. I don't even think it's any religious leader to decide that either. Homosexual couples should be given the same rights that heterosexual couples have already. Just because in their lifetime, they decided that they were attracted to the same sex, it does not give the government to strip away rights they had when they were born into this country.

Not everyone's religion have the same aspects as yours, though. In fact, many people don't even believe in religion these days. Punishing them just because you believe that their way of life is wrong is very hypocritical and an issue I'm surprised still exists in today's society. It doesn't matter what is and what isn't ethical towards someone who believes it should be banned. The ethics that you believe in play no part in what others believe in. If it's the life they believe to be the ethical one, nobody else should have a say in it just like nobody else should have a say in what you have to eat in the morning.

Melody
November 1st, 2008, 12:05 AM
To be quite honest, I do not care one whit either way.
I certainly agree that gay people have as much right to be happy as others. However, I also agree that allowing people to refer to such a union as marriage is not acceptable. In all honesty, this issue has blown up because no one has bothered to try to come up with a more appropriate and acceptable term for such a union. Maybe someday we'll coin a good phrase for it and call it a day. After all, this is America. We're very well known to squabble over issues like this and then come to slowly accept them.

Astinus
November 1st, 2008, 12:26 AM
On top of that, gay couples would take benefits that are funded by my tax money which would normally be reserved for traditional couples.
Tax money also goes to help disabled people eat and live, unwed/married mothers who need help feeding their children (at least in my state), and other such needed funds. It's not like once gay marriage is legalized that all funding from the government is going to help them.

David Blankenhorn argues that raising children in a same-sex marriage violates the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child that guarantees children the right to know and to be cared for by the two parents who brought them into this world.[67]
o_O That also means that adoption violates that U.N. Convention thing. If the biological parents are dead or incapable of caring for the child, it's "wrong" for them to be adopted by a couple that'll love the child(ren)?

And I agree with Erik. I mean, not all families are traditional these days, with both biological parents raising the children. Are those families also "wrong" because they "psychologically damage" the children in them?

This is also an argument that is commonly used against heterosexual sex without the intention of bearing a child.
This might not mean that you wanted to bring this up, but if a problem of homosexual sex is the fact that it does not allow one of the couple to bear a child, then what about the heterosexual couples that are physically unable, or choose not, to have children?

It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.
Audy covered most of this quote, and said what I was probably going to say against it, but I have more to say that he didn't.

The reason why homosexuals feel that they "don't belong" is because of the attitude people take toward them. People ostracize them. Heck, people ostracize anyone who doesn't fit in their definition of "normal". When someone is shunned from the group for being gay, of course they're going to be depressed. They lost their group. They get insulted. They feel worthless. It's not because of the actual homosexuality. It's because people are rude to those who are different. (Not that everyone is.)

what makes you think that God decides peoples' sexual orientations
God is said to have made "man" in His image. Each one of "us" is made in the image of God. When you hurt one human, you are actually hurting God, because God made every one of His children in His image. If you believe that we are all children of God, then homosexuals are made by God in His image, and when you hurt a homosexual in anyway, you are hurting one of God's children, and in a sense, God Himself. (At least, that's what I can dredge out of my memory at five in the morning from many years ago.)

My state, Connecticut, has legalized gay marriage. (However long it's going to last, I don't know. I'm happy we're currently like this.) But I would vote "no" on Prop 8 for a variety of reasons.

EDIT:

Maybe someday we'll coin a good phrase for it and call it a day. After all, this is America. We're very well known to squabble over issues like this and then come to slowly accept them.
Marriage is currently defined, according to my dorky Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as "the state of being united to another person as a usually contractual relationship according to law or custom". Definitions change with the times, people. Many have done so before, and will continue to do so. The culture (custom) also changes.

Jubilation
November 1st, 2008, 12:40 AM
First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases. It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful. It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.

I myself am gay, I had depression, not from being gay, I used to cut myself, not from being gay, from aruging with my parents. Homosexual's don't hurt themselves or others, we are harmless.

Melody
November 1st, 2008, 12:42 AM
Quote:
Maybe someday we'll coin a good phrase for it and call it a day. After all, this is America. We're very well known to squabble over issues like this and then come to slowly accept them.
Marriage is currently defined, according to my dorky Merriam-Webster Dictionary, as "the state of being united to another person as a usually contractual relationship according to law or custom". Definitions change with the times, people. Many have done so before, and will continue to do so. The culture (custom) also changes.Well thankfully the folks who publish the dictionary are on the right track. (They usually are).
But the fact still remains that there are going to be some extremely religious people who will fight this tooth and nail unless we come up with another term for gay marriage. I'm not saying it cant be a perfect equal to marriage by saying it should have a different word attached to it, I'm just saying that a lot of wind could be taken out of the religious side's sails so to speak...by doing so.

And I agree wirh Claire. I've had a few homosexual experiences myself, (Curiosity on the most part) and guess what? I'm still just perfectly fine. (though I've since returned to being normal)

speedinglight
November 1st, 2008, 12:45 AM
See, I'm pretty conflicted on this right now. I don't see how the majority of the U.S. won't vote against legalizing gay marriage, but really, it's something that is up for the states to decide.

As for me, I'm leaning towards yes (voting for proposition 8). And no, I don't believe voting for this means you're "Anti-gay" or you think that gay people are second class citizens. I certainly don't believe either of those. I just thing marriage should be between a man and a woman. Not even for religious reasons...My moral beliefs just direct me to have this opinion. And I'd appreciate it if no one called me a coward or a nut for thinking this way, and I will try do the same. I don't think anyone is wrong or right on this issue, I just think it's up to the people to decide. If the states decide it should be legal, so be it.

While i can honestly say that i would be on the no side i respect what you have to say on it Aura,
"I disagree with what you have to say, but i will fight for your right to say it" - Voltaire

after all it's freedom of speech

Melody
November 1st, 2008, 12:51 AM
While i can honestly say that i would be on the no side i respect what you have to say on it Aura,
"I disagree with what you have to say, but i will fight for your right to say it" - Voltaire

after all it's freedom of speech
Spoken like a true debater.

This is why I think we should come up with an acceptable word to express the idea of a homosexual marriage. and not call it marriage.
I believe it's the most noble way to resolve the issue. We give the gays the rights they deserve and give the conservatives and religious folk a word to demonize in their own little churchy world without being forced to challenge the sanctity of a marriage.

speedinglight
November 1st, 2008, 12:54 AM
Pachi is thats the case then you have any suggestions?

Melody
November 1st, 2008, 12:57 AM
I just suggested my solution. We should coin a separate term to refer to Gay marriage and give it equal meaning to marriage in all respects, and just use that word to refer to the union as either a marriage (male x female) or <whatever term is coined here> (Male x Male or Female X Female)

That would keep people from whining about the sacred meaning of the word marriage. And if you dont mind gay people so much you can hold the term for gay marriage as sacred as the actual word marriage and if you disagree then you can silently demonize it. your choice as long as you stay civil about how you express your opinion on the matter

speedinglight
November 1st, 2008, 01:09 AM
i see

well i honestly have no ideas....on a name forgay marrage that was why i was asking if you had suggestions of name eheh

Melody
November 1st, 2008, 01:18 AM
Oh. Well that's another discussion for another thread to be honest....
Anyways, back on track. I honestly think that there's seriously no harm in allowing gay marriage.
Honestly, I cannot emphasize enough the many pieces of scripture in the bible I've seen and heard which proclaim we are beings with FREE WILL. And to be honest, I know that The Bible also says we can be forgiven for our sins. The Bible also states that it is a sin to pass judgment upon others.

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." - Mahatma Gandhi

txteclipse
November 1st, 2008, 01:38 AM
you're so right, I should commit rape and shoplift then I'd be equivalent to gay marriage, it's totally worth it, thanks for opening my eyes, I could have never done that without your wisdom ^_^

You're right. It would be equivalent to other crimes as far as I'm concerned. Not as bad as rape, I'm pretty certain, but I'd still consider it a moral trespass.

the pursuit of happiness is a law now? well ****! and it sounds like you're an idiot who will follow any garbage that comes out of someone's mouth and just follow them because you can't make your own choice in life

I would advise you to use correct grammar when developing an argument of this kind.

your examples are terrible, we might as well compare you to the IQ of a shovel

If this particular shovel has an I.Q. of 135, then you are spot-on.

you may not know this but.... gay marriage doesn't kill people, people kill people, you get it now?

I fail to see how this is relevant to what you were addressing.

apparently atheists can marry, who knew?

However, they can't engage in holy matrimony as far as I'm concerned. It is unfortunate that I must now specify the difference between marriage and holy matrimony: they used to be one and the same.

then you will know that God forgives all and accepts all his children in open arms

But not all of His children accept Him.

I didn't know same gender sex can give STD's, I guess the chances are lower than that to sex with the opposite gender. I dunno, I know lots of gays who aren't depressed, they're actually quite cheerful and fun to be with and I'd totally have sex with them, even though I am straight, does that mean I will get an STD? probably not.

It is difficult to find meaning in the debacle that is your writing, but I think you're saying that homosexual individuals have a lower STD rate than straight individuals? This is untrue: they're about the same.

As much as I respect your opinion, there are enough homosexuals in the world to cover the benefits you're so dearly worried that they will be taking away from you. Once you give that money to the government, it's not yours anymore, sweetie.

Actually, yes, it very much is. Or rather, it belongs to the government, and I get to pick how my government spends that money, along with the rest of society. So if the majority of society says "no, we don't want gay marriage," then the government sure as heck better not be spending our money on it.

The reason why homosexuals feel that they "don't belong" is because of the attitude people take toward them.

This is part of the equation, I'm sure, but another, major reason they feel this way is because it isn't natural. Being gay forces your brain and body to do things they aren't intended to do. You become conflicted.

By the way, I do not in any form condone belittling or otherwise degrading any person on account of their sexual preference. I recognize that gays are still people (duh) and thus must be treated with respect. I have my own faults, and I wouldn't like it if people shoved them in my face. This doesn't mean I condone the gay lifestyle either, mind you: it simply means I am tolerant.

Not everyone's religion have the same aspects as yours, though. In fact, many people don't even believe in religion these days. Punishing them just because you believe that their way of life is wrong is very hypocritical and an issue I'm surprised still exists in today's society.

How can I be the one punishing people if what they're doing is wrong? That's like telling me I'm the bad guy if I have a shoplifter cool his heels in the slammer for a while. My moral code mandates that homosexuality is bad. Why would I see not allowing it to be a form of punishment?

God is said to have made "man" in His image. Each one of "us" is made in the image of God. When you hurt one human, you are actually hurting God, because God made every one of His children in His image. If you believe that we are all children of God, then homosexuals are made by God in His image, and when you hurt a homosexual in anyway, you are hurting one of God's children, and in a sense, God Himself. (At least, that's what I can dredge out of my memory at five in the morning from many years ago.)

And this is where free will comes into play. God does not make people homosexual: they choose to be that way. According to God Himself, homosexuality is a sin. He would not make people that are hard-wired to be sinners. It doesn't make sense.

EDIT: I really need to sleep now, and I can't see myself coming back to this thread if I can help it. I've gotten in way too many political debates lately, and it's becoming a bit too draining for my liking.

Thank you all for putting up with me and each other thus far for the most part: a lot of good, valid argumentation was brought forth, and I applaud the mostly mature manner in which this debate has been executed. This provides a good atmosphere of discussion, rather than a harsh environment that feels more like an exchange of blows.

Finally, if I have offended anyone personally, please tell me. I never desire to do so, and would like to make it right if I have. That's about it for me.

Emmie Em
November 1st, 2008, 02:22 AM
To be honest, I'd prefer it if you, txteclipse would stand down from your all high and mighty chair, stop being hypocritical and get this point:

If someone loves someone, then so be it. Nobody can chose who they love so why interfere?

Kotowari
November 1st, 2008, 02:52 AM
I won't be that radical, but I agree with Emily. =/

I strongly believe that true love has nothing to do with gender, and I even more strongly believe that people who are in love don't give a damn about their lover's gender.

I'd suggest you try to be more open-minded, txteclipse. :o I'm catholic myself, but that's no question here. As far as I know one cannot choose what gender to lover. =/ I think you fall in love with the person, not the package. (to state it black/white)
So I approve of gay marriage. =/ To me, it's no different than the marriage between man and woman. After all, isn't the main thought of marriage (holy matrimony or not) to connect two people who want to be with eachother? They love eachother so much that they don't want to leave each other's sides again, regardless of their genders.

Although I will say that it's still odd to see two people of the same gender together. =/ But that's just because I'm not used to it. ^^"

Motsuko Live
November 1st, 2008, 04:09 AM
I'm voting yes, anyways. I consider gay marriage to be unethical. On top of that, gay couples would take benefits that are funded by my tax money which would normally be reserved for traditional couples.
So what? Whether it's a straight couple or a gay couple, you're still paying for it. *cough*discrimination*cough*


Anyways, I am a Christian, and I am sure that you are well aware that my religion considers homosexuality to be a sin. This is really all the explanation I need, but it's not all you'll get, as I have others.
So just because you're Christian means everyone else has to live by you're rules? Not everyone in the world is Christian, txt. If you're gonna try to force your religion on people, force it on everyone; not just gays/lesbians. Why don't you go run up to a couple Muslim's on the street and preach your corruption to them, too? What you're doing is discriminating, no matter what half-assed excuse you try to put over it.

First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases. It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful. It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.
So you're basically saying that everyone else who isn't gay has sex only to reproduce? Why do you think they invented condoms? While a man and a woman are able to reproduce, it doesn't mean they want to do it everytime they engage in sexual activities.

But wait! Couples expressing their love for one another and not wanting to have a baby is a sin! If we go by what you're saying, it puts them right up there with gays and lesbians. Quick! Illiminate their rights to get married! Start riots, discriminate! Yes, this is what you're doing. Don't you dare call yourself a Christian when you're willing to sit here and tell another human being they're not allowed to love. Don't you dare call yourself a Christian when you're willing to sit here and tell another human being they're not allowed to be who they are. and last, but not least, don't you dare call yourself a Christian when you're the one committing the most deadly of the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride.

Oh, and by the way, I think we're about to start seeing a lot more gay couples/marriages, especially in the Chinese/Indian areas, what with the One Child Policy and the female infanticide that's going on.

Azonic
November 1st, 2008, 04:52 AM
This would just be a flat no.

For those who think that this has the slightest thing to do with religion, it doesn't. The government is not based on a religion, and it's just not right to just forcefully edit someone's belief's just because of the area in which they live in. Gays have the right to love, and as far as I'm concerned, sexuality was never a choice for someone. People are gay and they wish they weren't; they are in love with the people of the same sex, and you can't do anything to alter that. Love is an uncontrollable factor. What a gay marriage banishment is doing is just to putting a limit on the people that one can love. This is basically a second black vs. white discrimination, only relating to one's sexuality and personal preferences.

People should have the right to lead their own lives and discover their own personal interests. When blunt outsiders are voting Yes to this whole situation, then they have yet to open their eyes and feel what their victims are feeling. The majority may be against homosexual marriage, but who cares. In the old days, the majority of the people were white. They were the dominant force of this country, but now everything is equalized. And if everything is equalized, why are gays still discriminated? It's their own personal preference about who and what they like. Random outsiders shouldn't be able to choose every single opinion and trait they have. Love is an uncontrollable factor. Regardless of what others think, sexuality is not always an optional choice. There are MANY people who wish to be straight, but are gay; yet there are gays who take pride in their sexuality. Guess what? It's not controllable. For example, you love this certain someone at school but you don't want to; are you seriously going to force yourself out of loving her for someone else who's impressive, but not one who interests you? You can't tell another human being that they can't be who they are! Black vs. whites, gays vs. straights. I see little difference at hand.

The country was created equal!

Anyways, I am a Christian, and I am sure that you are well aware that my religion considers homosexuality to be a sin. This is really all the explanation I need, but it's not all you'll get, as I have others.No one cares what religion you are. We're talking about law here, and last time I checked, the government isn't a religion.

First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases.So what? Man vs. woman reproduction can lead to the spread of AIDS and the HIV virus. Do you think that should be banned? I think it's a no. So why should homosexuality be banned? Nobody said that gays actually wanted to reproduce. Man and woman can reproduce, but that DOES NOT guarantee that they want to reproduce every single time that they engage in intercourse. Their depression is only caused by the strongly biased views that most people take on them.

Since when, was loving someone you truly love a crime?

If gays were to indeed get married, they would be taking all the chances it may lead to. But it's their choice, and if they think that it's the right decision they should go for it. Both heterosexual and homosexual marriage have risks. Point is? You're only taking away the rights of people who you haven't even met. You're judging someone upon who they have to be and not who they really are.

Love has no gender.

St. Anger
November 1st, 2008, 10:14 AM
It doesn't matter religion. Chances are you have commited another sin or something against Christianity, so you would go to hell anyway.

Patchisou Yutohru
November 1st, 2008, 10:39 AM
It doesn't matter religion. Chances are you have commited another sin or something against Christianity, so you would go to hell anyway.

You seem to be missing the point that some people are trying to make:

There are more religions in the world than Christianity. Therefore, how can someone be defined in a Christianity sense if they are not a Christian to begin with?

Godot17
November 1st, 2008, 11:36 AM
I am not gonna cower, I will not give a fudgein damn about my rep. I will express myself in public, with my truthful opinion: Yes

I beleive Gay marriage is wrong. I may live in Texas, but I will College in California. If Gay Marriage is not illegalized, it will be abused, thus, more conflict. So I believe and immediate stop from the government is necessary on this.

I do not hate gays. But I do not like their way of expression. Gay bars are morally wrong. Man-kind has developed into morals that consider homosexuality wrong. As wrong a Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia, and sometimes Polygamy.

Go ahead, rep me if I just shot you up and uped you shot. Just remember: It's either a stop now, or a stop in the future with more technology, wisdom, and conflict.

Motsuko Live
November 1st, 2008, 11:41 AM
I am not gonna cower, I will not give a fudgein damn about my rep. I will express myself in public, with my truthful opinion: Yes

I beleive Gay marriage is wrong. I may live in Texas, but I will College in California. If Gay Marriage is not illegalized, it will be abused, thus, more conflict. So I believe and immediate stop from the government is necessary on this.

I do not hate gays. But I do not like their way of expression. Gay bars are morally wrong. Man-kind has developed into morals that consider homosexuality wrong. As wrong a Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Zoophilia, and sometimes Polygamy.

Go ahead, rep me if I just shot you up and uped you shot. Just remember: It's either a stop now, or a stop in the future with more technology, wisdom, and conflict.

Care to explain how you think gay marraige will be abused? It's marraige, bud... how much can you abuse it?

Godot17
November 1st, 2008, 11:43 AM
With the issues going on. Not many gays are getting married.

But if it does not become illegalized. They will think the Government is on their side. More will get married. More Anti-Gays will be angry.

Either now, or later with cruelty.

Went
November 1st, 2008, 11:57 AM
With the issues going on. Not many gays are getting married.

And? Having rights doesn't mean you have to use them. It just means you are free to use them whenever you want.

If straight people suddenly stopped getting married, would you suggest illegalizing the straight marriage?

But if it does not become illegalized. They will think the Government is on their side. More will get married.

Okay, may I ask why would the government NOT be with a group of citizens who want to have their rights? Just wondering. The government is supposed to support the rights for all the citizens.

More Anti-Gays will be angry.

If you illegalize it, gays and right-supporters will be angry too. But yeah, let's ban Obama from the presidency because he'll make anti-black people angry.

Either now, or later with cruelty.

That sentence scares me o_O
Care to explain, please?

Aegis
November 1st, 2008, 11:58 AM
I do not hate gays. But I do not like their way of expression. Gay bars are morally wrong.

So, you're saying that every homosexual person will go to a gay bar in their life? That's like saying every straight person will go to a non-gay bar in their lifetime. Just because their out there doesn't mean that the majority goes to them. The homosexual people who go to gay bars just make up a percent of all homosexual people, there are a good many who're just like straight couples, and don't do anything "immoral" like that. There's a good many heterosexual strip clubs out there, but not all heterosexual people will go to one in their life, now will they?

Motsuko Live
November 1st, 2008, 12:01 PM
But if it does not become illegalized. They will think the Government is on their side.
Uh, yeah... that's the idea. By keeping gay marraige legalized, the government is basically saying that they are on their side.

And tough luck if anti-gays get their panties in a knot. By illegalizing it, more gays/lesbians will be angry. There's no win-win solution, here. However, there is a win-win solution for the majority of the people: keep it legalized. The number of gays plus the amount of straights who are pro gay marraige is obviously more than the number of anti-gays. See what I'm getting at here?

Xaviar
November 1st, 2008, 12:10 PM
It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful.

Well, at least children raised by homosexual couples will be more open-minded than the lot of anti-gays out there...

I think denying the right to have a homosexual marriage is unconstitutional. And by the way, everyone who is using the argument of "My tax dollars are being spent on what I don't want!"... What about the single mothers filing for benefits? Not letting homosexuals marry is like forcing single mothers to get married so the government no longer has to pay for further education, etc.

txteclipse
November 1st, 2008, 12:17 PM
Aaand I'm sucked directly back in. I never can pull off extricating myself from this type of thing. :\

So what? Whether it's a straight couple or a gay couple, you're still paying for it. *cough*discrimination*cough*

Don't be roundabout. I can take you calling me a discriminator directly. Anyways, my point was that all of the money would be going to conventional couples. If gay marriage stays legal, gay couples would absorb some of the funds that should be going to conventional couples.

So just because you're Christian means everyone else has to live by you're rules? Not everyone in the world is Christian, txt. If you're gonna try to force your religion on people, force it on everyone; not just gays/lesbians. Why don't you go run up to a couple Muslim's on the street and preach your corruption to them, too? What you're doing is discriminating, no matter what half-assed excuse you try to put over it.

Okay. If the majority of the country decides a rule should be in effect, it must go into effect. This is democracy. I've said this many times already. I'm not saying the entire country is Christian. I'm saying a good portion of it is, and we want equal representation. When the few have the majority vote, democracy has failed.

So you're basically saying that everyone else who isn't gay has sex only to reproduce? Why do you think they invented condoms? While a man and a woman are able to reproduce, it doesn't mean they want to do it everytime they engage in sexual activities.

They invented condoms because people have so little control over their sexual desires that they needed a way to stop us from having so many babies. That and it's a good business venture: lots of money is made through sales of birth control.

Anyways, people have sex to a) have babies, b) feel good, and/or c) to express love.

But wait! Couples expressing their love for one another and not wanting to have a baby is a sin!

If you are referring to married couples, I have no trouble with them using birth control. They should be the only people having sex in the first place, as far as I'm concerned. Obviously this is not the case, but...tolerance.

Don't you dare call yourself a Christian when you're willing to sit here and tell another human being they're not allowed to love.

I am willing to sit here and defend what is me and mine from immoral actions that are slowly polluting the world around me. And guess what? I have plenty of male friends that I have no desire whatsoever to be sexually active with. I would consider some of them to be closer than I could ever come to a woman. Love and sex are exclusive: you keep acting like they aren't. There is such a thing as platonic love.

Don't you dare call yourself a Christian when you're willing to sit here and tell another human being they're not allowed to be who they are.

And here we go again with the majority of society deciding what is acceptable. You can do whatever you want as long as the rest of society is okay with you doing so. If they feel you shouldn't be doing it, and they are in the majority, you have no right to do it anyways. See Exhibit 1: shoplifters.

On top of this, being gay is a choice. You decide what your sexual orientation is. You decide what impulses to act on. It is your responsibility. Saying otherwise is a cop-out. It would be like my shoplifter example saying they have to steal because they were born that way.

If being gay was genetic, it would have been bred out of the human race by the first few generations. Gay = no children, except in rare instances. In fact, it is such a direct reproductive deterrent that it would be foolish to say it could last this long.

and last, but not least, don't you dare call yourself a Christian when you're the one committing the most deadly of the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride.

You think I enjoy doing this? You think I enjoy watching people do things like this to themselves? Homosexuality is one of the most tragic lies Satan has ever fed into society. I take no pride in seeing what is happening to people. This isn't an ego trip for me: it's a spiritual war in which there are too many casualties. Please don't think that I'm doing this to feel good about myself or whatever. This is about me protecting myself and mine from what I regard as a destructive lie.

And I'm not without fault: I would never, ever claim that. In fact, without going into details, I have some fault in this matter, or one like it. But at least I do not hide behind pretenses of righteousness. I recognize that what I do is wrong, and I try to correct it. And if I were harming society, I would expect society to keep me from doing so, per their wishes. I can't force you to think in the same manner, but that's where tolerance comes in.

Tamaki
November 1st, 2008, 12:24 PM
Being only 14, I can't vote yet... but I would definitely vote no on 8 if I could.

I'm not a lesbian, but I think gays, lesbians and bisexuals should be able to get married if they want. Why shouldn't they be able to? Marriage has to do with love, not gender.

I live in California, and almost every morning on my way to school I hear radio commercials telling people to vote yes on 8, so that we can "protect traditional marriage." Excuse me, but wtf? We're not forcing straight people to get into a gay relationship, and we're not taking away heterosexual marriage. Just because you think it's wrong, why should other people should have to suffer?

And, to all of you who think gay marriage/love is "morally wrong..." there are a lot of people here who are gay and would take a lot of offense to your posts. Some of my best friends are gay, and I don't think they'd be very happy reading this thread. And, the Bible was meant to be didactic, not literal. You guys don't need to take everything in it so seriously.

Besides, aren't we all God's children? :] Or does that only apply to straight people?

txteclipse
November 1st, 2008, 01:12 PM
And, the Bible was meant to be didactic, not literal. You guys don't need to take everything in it so seriously.

The Bible is very clear, in a very literal and non-strictly-didactic way, that practicing homosexuality is a sin.

Marriage has to do with love, not gender.

It has to do with both. You don't have to be the opposite gender to someone in order to love them, but you don't have to be in a sexual relationship with someone to love them either. Marriage is for opposite-sex couples to have a loving and sexual relationship the way God intended.

And, to all of you who think gay marriage/love is "morally wrong..." there are a lot of people here who are gay and would take a lot of offense to your posts.

I can't see how someone could be offended by a discussion that has thus far not erupted into anything resembling a flame war or name-calling fest. This is a fairly mature debate.

Besides, aren't we all God's children? :] Or does that only apply to straight people?

We are, but this doesn't mean we try to justify wrong. You can't simply sin with the mindset that God is going to cover for you. It doesn't work that way.

Netto Azure
November 1st, 2008, 01:45 PM
I understand the Yes argument, but I must say NO on California Proposition 8. Once we the government is given the authority to infringe ones civil rights, I'm afraid where will we stop? I'll add more reason's but I have no time.... D=

Yamikarasu
November 1st, 2008, 01:46 PM
On top of this, being gay is a choice. You decide what your sexual orientation is. You decide what impulses to act on. It is your responsibility. Saying otherwise is a cop-out. It would be like my shoplifter example saying they have to steal because they were born that way.

If being gay was genetic, it would have been bred out of the human race by the first few generations. Gay = no children, except in rare instances. In fact, it is such a direct reproductive deterrent that it would be foolish to say it could last this long.


Being gay is not genetic, you are right, it is hormonal. Being gay cannot be passed down from parent to child. A gay male would simply have had a higher dose of female hormones in the womb, and vice versa for a gay female. There are many different theories for how this occurs. Here is an interesting article from the Boston Globe concerning this topic. (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/)

If gay was a choice, why would anyone choose to be gay? If it goes against our brains and our bodies, like you claim, why would they? Why would they choose to belong to a group that is so discriminated against by people such as yourself?

And I find it interesting you seem to be saying that "the majority gets what the majority wants," and this is true in the sort of system we have now, but does that make it right? If the majority didn't want to allow interracial marriages, would they be right in banning them? Do you think the minority does not deserve to have their rights protected if the majority feels otherwise?

Tamaki
November 1st, 2008, 01:52 PM
We are, but this doesn't mean we try to justify wrong. You can't simply sin with the mindset that God is going to cover for you. It doesn't work that way.


I know. I don't think you can, say, murder someone and get away with it, or steal from someone and get away with it. Yes, murder and theif are sins. Homosexuality? Just because a book written by men who claim to have spoken with God say it's wrong doesn't mean it is a sin.

If you don't like gays, okay. I think it's very discriminatory, but it's your belief. But just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean they should have to adhere to your beliefs.

That is all I am trying to say.

Erik Destler
November 1st, 2008, 01:56 PM
On top of this, being gay is a choice. You decide what your sexual orientation is. You decide what impulses to act on. It is your responsibility. Saying otherwise is a cop-out. It would be like my shoplifter example saying they have to steal because they were born that way.Really? It is a choice?
Mind if I ask how you know this?

Find a sound-of-mind homosexual who claims it was a choice, then.

You're stretching your analogies, AGAIN.
A person IS born gay or straight or another variation - whether or not they realize it/come to terms with it is a whole different story.

If gay marriage stays legal, gay couples would absorb some of the funds that should be going to conventional couples.What does that matter?

They invented condoms because people have so little control over their sexual desires that they needed a way to stop us from having so many babies. That and it's a good business venture: lots of money is made through sales of birth control.

Anyways, people have sex to a) have babies, b) feel good, and/or c) to express love.However, condoms are also used to try to help prevent other things, such as the spreading of a few diseases.
Plus doesn't the Bible say something about only having sex to reproduce? D:

Jubilation
November 1st, 2008, 02:00 PM
The Bible is very clear, in a very literal and non-strictly-didactic way, that practicing homosexuality is a sin.


You make homosexuality sound so cold

AssonantalZ
November 1st, 2008, 02:06 PM
I find it funny how in modern times, people are quick to judge the ethics of same-sex marriage, yet no one addresses any of the other marital issues that might be seen as unholy in the eyes of the Christian Bible. For example...polygamy. I think even txteclipse would agree with me that polygamy, for one, violates the sanctity of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. On top of that, polygamy acts as a far superior carrier of STI's than homosexuality with frequent and diverse partners. Let alone the implications of our tax dollars.

Secondly, interreligious couples. Jewish people marrying Christians. Christians marrying Muslims, etc. How does that fit into the sacred plan of the Bible? To marry one with religious viewpoints differing from your own? The Christians have a long history of being religiously intolerant of other people... The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. Even modern times where it could be speculated that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are President Bush's ways of lashing out on the Islamic people. Yet, on a daily basis, men and women of differing religions unite under some god anyway.

Finally, the actual sanctity of modern-day marriage. Same-sex couples would not be violating anything that straight couples have not already made infamous throughout the course of history. Marriages under a justice of the peace, for example. Is there really anything holy about getting married before a presiding judge? Or eloping. I think I can safely say there is nothing sacred to the context of an eloping couple. To say that same-sex marriage would be violating the sacred words of the Bible seems a bit hypocritical when more and more non-worshippers marry under local officials each year. If we are going to be so critical of people who undermine the ideals of the Bible, then we should be sure to be critical of ALL people if we are going to make the Bible our basis for state law. And I am certainly not condoning that.

I personally have nothing against gay marriage. I feel the intimate love between two human beings in itself is sacred and should not be something that is censored "for the sake of our youth." It is no different in terms of a child's upbringing than raising a Caucasian child with a group of a different cultural background. It is merely a new experience in life that the child is allowed to have in order to identify with him or herself even better. Be it with a different culture, a different religion, or a different sexual orientation.

In the end, I feel it's just a matter of what side you speak for. The legal or the religious. If it's the legal side (which, frankly, has no right delving into religious affairs based on the very foundation of this country's ideals, "separation of church and state") then be sure to include the other issues such as polygamy. If it's for the religious side, then address the other problems as well...justice of the peace, eloping, etc.

Fox♠
November 1st, 2008, 02:17 PM
If people feel they should have the right to marry others of the same sex, I'll tolerate it as long as a) this is the majority vote and b) people that perform marriage ceremonies are not forced to perform said ceremonies. This is how democracy functions.

I'm voting yes, anyways. I consider gay marriage to be unethical. On top of that, gay couples would take benefits that are funded by my tax money which would normally be reserved for traditional couples.

Finally, this thread should be locked. There's no way in heck it's going to stay peaceful for long.

Sorry I didn;t realise it was 1820 still. Speaking of which, don't you have some jewish people to blame for your life problems right about now? Maybe after that we could enslave some Africans and force them to work for us, then possibly bomb London a few times and try and conquer Europe?

You absolute Bigot. Hardly any of your tax goes on married couples anyway, it mostly goes on War, politicians salaries and health care. Grow up.

revelp8
November 1st, 2008, 02:45 PM
ok first off, you guys need to simmer down. everyone is getting heated up just because of the stance they have.

Im voting no as far as the thread is concerned.

as far as the myths go about gays and marriage are completely untrue. there is just as much chance of receiving an STD man X woman. its all about being SAFE and using condoms etc. etc.

as far as the gay bars go, that's completely UNCALLED for. im straight, so that must mean i have a horrible time in gay bars. WRONG! but thats just me though correct? if you went in one, and had a horrible time just being in there, that's understandable. to tell you the truth, i've had more fun in gay bars than straight ones. but that has NOTHING to do with gay marriage in the first place, so why does that even come up in debate? i sense a little hatred...

when two people love each other, is that NOT sacred? oh, i forgot to put which gender in there. sorry

Times are changing regardless people. firstly, it was interracials who couldn't get married back then. now its the same gender. whats next? are we, as a society going to stop each other from our own rights?

DarkPrince_
November 1st, 2008, 02:54 PM
Well everyone should have their own rights no matter what and I am not a gay.

Fox♠
November 1st, 2008, 02:55 PM
I think that gay marriage is wrong. That was my point. Note the bit about shoplifting if those examples aren't cutting it for you.

And it may, in fact probably will, be harmful to allow gay marriage, at least in my eyes. I do not want my children brought up in schools where teachers can take them on field trips to lesbian weddings (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html), or to let teachers be able to teach them in sex ed that being gay is okay. For me, that would be like allowing teachers to tell kids to shoplift. It is morally unacceptable.



It is a holy union between a man and a woman, no matter how that definition has been twisted thus far.



Why did you link to my visitor page?

Anyways, I am a Christian, and I am sure that you are well aware that my religion considers homosexuality to be a sin. This is really all the explanation I need, but it's not all you'll get, as I have others.

First, homosexuality causes physical harm. I probably don't need to go too in-depth here. It can spread STD's as well, which is made worse by the fact that it is not a viable form of procreation: it is an unnecessary method to spread such diseases. It can also cause sexual confusion in those exposed to it at a young or relatively young age, which can also be harmful. It can lead to depression, feelings of low self-worth or not belonging, and the desire to get cosmetic surgeries such as sex changes, which aside from being unnecessary always carry the risk of infection, disease, and all of the other complications normally associated with surgery.

Are you actually mentally inept? A STI doesn't pick and choose it's victims based on sexual orientation.

You do realise 56% of aids suffers are heterosexual don't you?

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
November 1st, 2008, 03:02 PM
Sorry I didn;t realise it was 1820 still. Speaking of which, don't you have some jewish people to blame for your life problems right about now? Maybe after that we could enslave some Africans and force them to work for us, then possibly bomb London a few times and try and conquer Europe?

Sorry, I just found that hilarious, though I agree with you completely.

I just want to say - If two people are in love and want to marry, why should anyone have the right to stop them? Don't try and use the shoplifter comparison, because these two people getting married is not going to directly affect anyone else is it? If this is a crime (which I don't think it is), its a victimless crime, so really, what's the problem?

Just my two cents, though it doesn't really matter what I think, seeing as I'm 14 and in the UK :D

Fox♠
November 1st, 2008, 03:11 PM
That's the thing though. It's the typical bigot argument to compare anything they disagree with to crimes.

Thank goodness not all Christians take his dated and quite frankly disgusting stance.

solovino
November 1st, 2008, 03:17 PM
Hey people, calm down!

What happened here? I read Neko Hima's post last time, and two hours later they are already calling each other names and "stupid" or "inept". Didn't txteclipse said a couple of hours ago we were not going into flame wars?

OK, so coming on topic, here's my opinion.

If I had the ability to vote, which I don't, I would vote Yes on P-8. Not because I have something against gays (I don't; I just happen to not have met enough of them yet) but rather because as with all legalese, when rushed by irrational religious fears, they tend to come up very, very, very wrong, and cause more harm than good. If we hold on gay marriage for a while until we (not we, but our legislators) can understand the consequences and can decide what are we really abiding by, then by all means, yes to gay marriage. But until that happens, it's better to study the complex reactions such a dictinary combinatin will have in society. After all, law exists not to prevent new situations, but to regulate their behavious and effects once they become common enough.

If we say No to P-8 now, and five years later things happen to go very, very, very, very wrong again, it will be too late, the genie will be already out of the bottle, as there will be married gay couples. We may know better, but our legislator don't, they are not intelligent enough, so we have to wait for them to figure things out. It is unfortunate, but those are the consequences when mankind as a whole forsakes millenia of gained knowledge that come in the form of common sense and rely instead on a bunch of rules written only to temporarily accomodate those who wrote them to the eyes of the populace: law (mostly law), religion, science, the list goes on.

Fox♠
November 1st, 2008, 03:22 PM
Didn't txteclipse said a couple of hours ago we were not going into flame wars?


He also said that being gay is a crime in the league of shop lifting to rape, that homosexuals are sinners, and therefore will end up in 'hell', he has being incredibly crude, shallow, narrow minded and insensitive. He called in the storm, now he's got the thunder.

txteclipse
November 1st, 2008, 03:25 PM
Really? It is a choice?
Mind if I ask how you know this?

Perhaps because I've had run-ins with sexual confusion myself? I'm not a parrot spewing what other people tell me, thank you. I have first hand experience with this type of thing.

You know how you become sexually confused? It takes a while. A long while. It usually begins with some type of experience with whatever strain of confusion you are experiencing. Then, over time, you slowly begin building a sexual thought life around this confusion, which leads to actions. In other words, you have sexual thoughts that you normally wouldn't have because that initial experience has tweaked your mind to think that way. This builds until you delude yourself into thinking that what you're experiencing is "normal."

Plus doesn't the Bible say something about only having sex to reproduce?

Not that I'm aware of. It says that you should only have sex when you're married, but it says nothing about only having sex to have children.

Sorry I didn;t realise it was 1820 still. Speaking of which, don't you have some jewish people to blame for your life problems right about now? Maybe after that we could enslave some Africans and force them to work for us, then possibly bomb London a few times and try and conquer Europe?
Capitalize "Jewish." Anyways, why would I blame Jews for anything? And why would I enslave Africans or bomb London? There's no Biblical basis for these things, and they're wrong. Sounds like you're the bigot for assuming I would do that.

when two people love each other, is that NOT sacred? oh, i forgot to put which gender in there. sorry

I agree with you 100% that love is sacred, and that anyone can love anyone else. This kind of love is what we call "unconditional" love, and is completely unrelated to sexuality.

Are you actually mentally inept? A STI doesn't pick and choose it's victims based on sexual orientation.

I don't recall saying this anywhere. Re-read that bit you quoted, please.

You do realise 56% of aids suffers are heterosexual don't you?

Yes. I basically said that a bit earlier, actually.

He also said that being gay is a crime in the league of shop lifting to rape, that homosexuals are sinners, and therefore will end up in 'hell'

Never, ever, make things up. I did not say once that gay people will automatically end up in hell for sinning. If that were true, everyone would be going to hell, because everyone has sinned.

Black Mage
November 1st, 2008, 03:32 PM
k

This thread has run its course. Hot topics like this cannot survive on a forum like this for two long with some many varying opinions. Nobody will concede to the other and eventually this will devolve into a flame war. So, as a precautionary move, this thread is:

*closed*